V.K. Jadhav, J.

1. The petitioners assail the common judgment and order dated 17.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Nos. 203 of 2001, 204 of 2001, 205 of 2001, 206 of 2001, 207 of 2001 and 211 of 2001 (Anandkumar and another v. State of Maharashtra and another), thereby dismissing the said revisions and confirming the common order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, rejecting thereby the petitioners' application for discharge/dropping of proceedings.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal writ petitions are as follows :-

(a) The respondent Drug Inspector had filed six separate complaints in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad against the present petitioners for having committed offence under Sections 18 (1) (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1940") punishable under Sections 27 and 34 of the Act of 1940. In all the cases, the petitioners are the same. The petitioners accused appeared in those cases and filed their applications at Exh.43, 39, 42, 43, 23 and 39 respectively, praying therein to drop the proceedings or close the cases.

(b) The respondent Drug Inspector on various dates, drew the samples of sodium chloride injection from General Hospital Bhandara, Sangli and Grant Medical College, J.J. Mumbai. After obtaining the samples, the respondent Drug Inspector had sent the said samples of sodium chloride injection referred to in the proceedings to the Government Analyst, Maharashtra. According to the respondent Drug Inspector, he received the report from the Government analyst in respect of the said samples to the effect that it was not of standard quality, as defined under the provisions of Act of 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder, because the samples contained suspended matter visible to the unaided eyes. Thus, the respondent Drug Inspector had delivered a copy of the said report to the Pharmacists of the Hospital as referred above and informed the Hospital authorities, not to use the said stock and return the same to the manufacturer. The said samples were drawn from the lot 3907 L- 1. The hospital authorities intimated the Drug Inspector that said bottles were directly purchased from Amrit Pharmaceuticals, Aurangabad. It is alleged that thereafter another Drug Inspector delivered the copies of the report of the Government analyst to the petitioner Shankarlal. The respondent Drug Inspector had thereafter filed six separate complaints in the Court on 21.6.1988 against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of provisions of sub-section (3) of section 25 of the Act of 1940, both the petitioners had notified to the Drug Inspector in writing within a period of 28 days under certificate of posting that the report of the Government analyst was absolutely incorrect and unreliable. The petitioners intended to adduce evidence in contravention to the said report at the appropriate time. Furthermore, the petitioners on the date on which they appeared before the court, in response to the summons, filed applications in all the complaints in terms of provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act of 1940 pointing out to the Court that samples are not produced before the court along with the complaints and that the petitioners want to adduce evidence contrary to the report of the Government analyst. The petitioners in the said applications requested the Court that the application be kept on record and their right to adduce evidence contrary to the report of the Government analyst be reserved and that the petitioners would make necessary application under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 at appropriate stage. Learned counsel submits that the respondent Drug Inspector has failed to produce the samples in the Court in time and produced i